Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Mar 19, 2019.
So temperatures are falling?
The sites I have used and quoted have some kind of block on cutting and pasting. I will post the full web sites sometime today.
CO2 levels are rising despite the greening.
In geological time we are. Climate change has been happening for billions of years.
The vegetable matter contains water and is taken out of the water cycle for a while.
The extra greening may well be as a result of increased CO2 along with more water vapour present in the atmosphere.
with more available CO2 the plants require less water to grow at a faster rate.
Agreed but once again we as individuals, the collective consumers do not want to stop. We all perpetuate the conspicuous consumption that is the cause of these issues, we arn't giving up our cosiness anytime soon... Our makeup, our clothing, (well made or otherwise), our homes, gardens, cars, caravans, holidays, books, tech, white goods, gadgets, convenience foods, restaurant visits... Etc etc etc
Plus our continued need to increase this rather then stand still and produce more who will do the same. Common sense says that finite resources make this impossible, but we continue with a system based upon continued expansion.
Yes indeed, another example of our innate selfishness it would seem.
Only up to about 2009:
Alley RB (2004) GISP2 ice core temperature data.
IGBP pages/world data center for paleoclimatology program, Boulde Co, USA.
Scotese CR(2002) Analysis of temperature oscillations in geological eras. Paleo-map Project:
Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K (2001) Trends, Rythms and Abberations in global climate 65Ma to present, Science 27 April 2001: vol 292, issue 5517, pp. 686-693 DOI: 10.1126/science.1059412
Lisiecki LE, Raymo ME (2005) A pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed Benthie (delta 18) records Paleoceanography, vol 20, pa1003, doi: 10.1029/2004 PA 001071
Jouzel J et al (2007b) Orbital and millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over last 800,000 years, Science, vol,317,
No 5893, pp.793-797 10 August 2007
Loehle C, McCulloch JH (2008a) (2008b)
A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on NON-TREE RING PROXIES.
Energy & Environment, Vol 18 (for a) No 7 & 8, Vol 19 (for b) No 1
The problem with the issue of ACC and AGW is that the science is just too complex for the vast majority of people to understand, thus you get idiots spouting all kinds of horse manure- economics profs who are brought in to talk about the science in a field of which they know next to nothing, but in the minds of some people 'its all science'. There are many people who genuinely do not accept AGCC based on nothing more than a gut feeling that humans are not able to have such an impact. Many more have daft religious convictions, and then there are just the plain stupid, uninformed and ill-educated. I refuse to debate the issue anymore. Either you are intelligent enough and educated enough to understand the science, in which case you accept AGCC or you are not, in which case I won't waste oxygen.
Poor old lexus has made some very odd comments, not backed by scientific evidence, unless he counts himself as a scientist. I will just refute a couple here; It is currently warmer NOW than the Medieval Warm Period. Carbon dioxide accounts for between 9-25% of the greenhouse effect, not the 6% he pulled out of his big boys book of magic numbers. Where he got the 92% by water I can only imagine. He also imagines we cannot change the atmosphere's composition- He clearly doesn't remember the problems we had with ozone depletion.
For a start;
During the later portion of the Cretaceous, from 66 to 100 million years ago, average global temperatures reached their highest level during the last ~200 million years. This is likely to be the result of a favorable configuration of the continents during this period that allowed for improved circulation in the oceans and discouraged the formation of large scale ice sheet.[citation neede
This why yesterday is not always a good indicator for tomorrow.
Scotese subscribes to warming due to greenhouse gases.
Also why the last decade is not a good marker for the next.
It is not. Greenland alone should tell you that but you live your dream as you like.
6% is correct and was referenced. What is your source?
Check the reference given.
Had nothing to do with CO2, you are mixed up poor child.
Saying it does not make it a fact as any scientist will tell you and I see the new get out of jail acronym is AGCC replacing AGW
Climate change is beyond our direct control and always will be, we are bit players only.
I have not seen any debate coming from you, all you do is trot out the latest acronym and call anyone who disagrees with your dogma an idiot.
Let us see you produce some facts that stand up to scrutiny, BTW where are your references? you might then be able to start a debate.
AGW is discredited by corrupted science so what do the AGW practitoners do? They create a new acronym as they did when it became AGW.
It is the degree of that is disputed by me and many and his evidence stands up in geological time not just last year or so.